What can Eastern Catholics reject / accept in terms of faith?

[mgy100]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

Remember, however, that the Eastern Churches participated in Vatican I and II and ratified their decisions, which included most of the "controversial" matters being brought up here. Those two Councils were not "local Councils of the Latin Church" by any stretch of the imagination, and they were not viewed as such by those who attended them.



Say what you will, but Papal Infallibility is not a "Latin" theological perspective. It is covered by the documents of Vatican II which all Churches ratified, including the Melkite Church.

While its execution is certainly subject different approaches, the teaching itself is quite solidly affirmed by our joint-Catholic Councils.

Peace and God bless!

Go Ghosty! The truth is no matter how one attempts to color the issue of papal infallilbility in a Catholic Church, it is something you MUST adhere to! A point often, and I might say again, often denied or dismissed by non-latin rite catholics. One has to simply read the boards here to get a notion of that. Being "in communion with Rome" equals holding fast to papal infallibility, regardless if you celebrate the Latin rite or a church that uses the byzantine rite etc..................

[Woodstock]

Originally Posted by East and West

Where is the Vatican saying this?

Paragraph 39

[kitkatty]

Originally Posted by jimmy

No he doesn't. As LakaYa has said already, he is a Melkite. The CCC does not explain his theology. That is why there is the Light For Life Catechism written by the bishops of the Ruthenian, Ukranian and Melkite and etc bishops. It is the catechism of the Byzantine tradition.

This post on catechisms made me think back to my Latin catechism book that was used in my Byzantine parish in the sixties when I was coming up. I am so glad that the children in the Byzantine church are not having to used Latin catechisms. I feel cheated that as growing up I didn`t even have full knowledge of my Byzantine traditions. We habve made progress in reclaiming our heritage and of course more needs to be made.

[Joab Anias]

Originally Posted by kitkatty

This post on catechisms made me think back to my Latin catechism book that was used in my Byzantine parish in the sixties when I was coming up. I am so glad that the children in the Byzantine church are not having to used Latin catechisms. I feel cheated that as growing up I didn`t even have full knowledge of my Byzantine traditions. We habve made progress in reclaiming our heritage and of course more needs to be made.

Interesting post. Do you find the language gap makes it harder to cary over that culture into English?

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

Remember, however, that the Eastern Churches participated in Vatican I and II and ratified their decisions, which included most of the "controversial" matters being brought up here. Those two Councils were not "local Councils of the Latin Church" by any stretch of the imagination, and they were not viewed as such by those who attended them.



Say what you will, but Papal Infallibility is not a "Latin" theological perspective. It is covered by the documents of Vatican II which all Churches ratified, including the Melkite Church.

While its execution is certainly subject different approaches, the teaching itself is quite solidly affirmed by our joint-Catholic Councils.

Peace and God bless!

To be clear. Most of the Melkite bishops at Vatican I opposed the decree on infallibility. In fact there were over a hundred bishops who opposed it. Most of the bishops who opposed the decree did not show up at the council for the vote I assume because they did not want to vote on it because they knew they had no chance of coming out on top in the vote.

Your point comes from a western perspective on councils. I can foresee the eastern Catholics rejecting it for the same reason the EO rejected the council of Florence.

Eastern Catholics were insignificant at the Vatican I council. Probably less than 50 bishops compared with 600 Latin bishops. Of course their opinion is not going to mean anything, expecially in an atmosphere that distains everything eastern. The Councils tend to be latins legislating and easterns being forced to agree. Vatican II was a little different.

[HailMary]

Originally Posted by jimmy

Of course their opinion is not going to mean anything, expecially in an atmosphere that distains everything eastern.

The Church is not some majority rule system. We are led by the Holy Spirit.

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by HailMary

The Church is not some majority rule system. We are led by the Holy Spirit.

I agree that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit but I would understand that a little differently than latin Catholics would.

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by yeshua

On a side note, it's nice to see some of the regular Eastern Catholics back.

You've been missed, I take it things are swell over at ByzCath?

(done derailing, continue the dialogue)

Peace and God Bless.

They are about the same as ever - decrying our bishops, complaining, complaining and more complaining. So it is about par for the course.

[yeshua]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

They are about the same as ever - decrying our bishops, complaining, complaining and more complaining. So it is about par for the course.

On the contrary, ASimpleSinner, if by complaining you mean defense comes once we are barraged by Latins and Latinized Eastern/Oriental Catholics regarding our very common and highly substantiated experiences as Eastern and Oriental Catholics.

At least they present arguments for their experiences, quoting their venerable Bishops and Patriarchs, documents from Rome, and historical accounts, rather than unsubstantiated statements suited for conversations with clergy ("You HAVE to belief X to be Eastern Catholic" etc.).

Peace and God Bless.

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by yeshua

On the contrary, ASimpleSinner, if by complaining you mean defense comes once we are barraged by Latins and Latinized Eastern/Oriental Catholics regarding our very common and highly substantiated experiences as Eastern and Oriental Catholics.

At least they present arguments for their experiences, quoting their venerable Bishops and Patriarchs, documents from Rome, and historical accounts, rather than unsubstantiated statements suited for conversations with clergy ("You HAVE to belief X to be Eastern Catholic" etc.).

Peace and God Bless.

No Yeshua, I am talking about the bitter complaining over the bishops that is devisive, derisive, and insulting.

[yeshua]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

No Yeshua, I am talking about the bitter complaining over the bishops that is devisive, derisive, and insulting.

Then I agree, and like I said earlier, for every statement by Bishop A there will be a proclamation by Patriarch B. Presenting these statements and being honest with them is one thing, stating that the Patriarch of the Melkite Church is wrong in his assertions and failing to be Catholic is divisive, derisive, and insulting. And more often than not this sort of disrespect happens to our venerable Bishops (and other clergy) simply because their statements buttress experiences of some of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics that itch and bother a few Latins and Eastern/Orientals.

Peace and God Bless.

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by yeshua

Then I agree, and like I said earlier, for every statement by Bishop A there will be a proclamation by Patriarch B. Presenting these statements and being honest with them is one thing, stating that the Patriarch of the Melkite Church is wrong in his assertions and failing to be Catholic is divisive, derisive, and insulting. And more often than not this sort of disrespect happens to our venerable Bishops (and other clergy) simply because their statements buttress experiences of some of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics that itch and bother a few Latins and Eastern/Orientals.

Peace and God Bless.

Again, not even that heroic. B&$&ing becuase the bishops don't do exactly how some know-it-all pontificators on there absolutely know it should be done that way is at least 33% of the noise to signal ratio most of the time.

[wannabee]

do you really have to bring complaints about one Forum into another ?

[ASimpleSinner]

How much of Chalcedon+ do the Chaldeans have to accept?

How much of Constantinople II+ do the Oriental Catholics have to accept?

[yeshua]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

Again, not even that heroic. B&$&ing becuase the bishops don't do exactly how some know-it-all pontificators on there absolutely know it should be done that way is at least 33% of the noise to signal ratio most of the time.

ASimpleSinner,

I don't know what this means?

Peace and God Bless.